`the Death of America - 21/01/10 - R.I.P.

D

Dudester

Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
267
Likes
35
Well, the US Supreme Court just gave your country away today (if you re a US Citizen).... it's as good as dead, your power to sway it IN ANYWAY what-so-ever is now zero. Money rules and all House and Senate members will become whores as the Giant multi national corps quickly buy them up. Expat is the only option left. Here's the link. The headlines change (I don't know how to freeze it here) but the one you want to read is "FREE FOR ALL". Coorporations now have more power OFFICIALLY it's time to move on. FUNERAL PLANS PENDING....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/free for all
 
We have to thank the two Bushes for the current Supreme Court, a pack of mediocre ideologues.

I'm glad to be out of the US. Still miss some things, like good public libraries, but they will probably be the next thing to go. See, books might give the populace IDEAS....! Dangerous stuff, ideas.

Sara
 
Dudester:

You should really stop commenting about US politics and legal decisions since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The five private entities that spent the most during the 2008 election, are as follows:

US Chamber of Commerce: $36.4
Freedom's Watch (political action group) $30.2
AFSCME, SEIU & EFAC (unions): $78.1

http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...h=353&w=959&title=WSJ.COM&thePubDate=20080826

In case you are also challenged in the math department, I'll explain it to you more plainly: Unions spent double what other interest organizations spent.

Neil
 
Hey Neil, Now I forget, dad is also your uncle OR mom is also your sister - straighten me out hillbilly boy..... (BTW, my Doberman also needs his b***s licked, you sound like you'd be perfect at it. Should I let him know Neil says he can't wait to get down there and help out?)

Your facts with numbers fascinate me but what does the past have to do with how things will now change with all the regulations taken down by a right wing bunch of fools? Duh... MAYBE denver is the challenged one (BTW brainiac, I know exactly what I'm talking about but just because it all goes over your head please don't blame me for your lack of basic comprehension....

Thanks for being another DF American, you right wing, low IQ guys push my ass right over to Paris (my second home, MUCH BETTER country - France - than that garbage can A.K.A. the United States.) You stay in the USA with your Bud Light (A.K.A. water) and I'll hang in Paris with the smart people and great food/beautiful women (oh, that's OK, we don't need to talk "women", I understand) Keep pretending that IQ is 3 digits long (sorry but it's only 2, you gave yourself away in other posts) silly fool and his crumbling Empire - bahahaha
 
Orwellian, you ain't gonna like it, it's SHOCKING !!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431223.html

Don't let denver see it if possible, he has some comprehension problems - poor lad can't help it, born in a run down trailer park in 1950's Alabama, no med attention (had a lack of oxygen for a while not making it to that little baby brain and you get RAINMAN like - ish. A Sympatico Dudester
 
You have such a way with words, Dudester.

Thank you so much for sharing your eloquent posts with all of us. They are to the mind what poetry is to the soul.

Bravo!
Neil
 
It was obviously a ruling on freedom of speech, not on letting corporations do whatever they want. Look at what the ruling struck down as opposed to what the ruling left in.

It does not allow corporations (and people, by the way) to directly contribute unlimited amounts to candidates or parties. That was upheld.

It does allow corporations (and people, by the way) to spend their money how they see fit to voice their own views.

So one way keeps corporations and persons from buying their candidates outright, while the other allows them to say what they want to say, a right protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What cracks me up is that the "left" is now saying that because of conservative appointees, the court has actually protected freedom of speech, which is apparently a bad thing.

All the while, we watch Obama and his side making special deals with States (at least Nebraska, and someone mentioned to me something about Louisiana the other day, but I couldn't find anything on that) in order to buy their congressfolk's votes on the healthcare bill.

I haven't heard any outcry from the left on that. Is it because to the left, the end always justifies the means because they are obviously "right" about everything, for our own good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top